The quality of legislation is not a matter of communication; it is a litmus test for the functioning of the rule of law. From this perspective, Hungarian legislative practice in recent years has been difficult to defend: processes have typically been procedurally rushed, professionally often unsupported, and marked by social consultation only in traces—if at all.

As lawyers, it is no exaggeration to say that the quality of the regulatory environment has in many cases deteriorated to an indefensible level.

Private Members’ Bills as a “Systemic Circumvention”

One of the most serious problems was that a substantial part of government lawmaking was submitted to Parliament in the form of private members’ bills. This technique is formally lawful, but at a systemic level it is capable of circumventing:

• prior impact assessments,
• the obligation of social consultation,
• and professional scrutiny.

The practical consequences are well known: contradictory rules, subsequent “firefighting” amendments, and legislation whose application is uncertain from the very moment it enters into force.

This is not efficiency, but institutional irresponsibility.

The Erosion of Legal Certainty

Unpredictable legislation is not merely a theoretical problem. It has concrete economic and social consequences:

• interpretive legal risk increases,
• the investment environment deteriorates,
• and trust in the state and its institutions declines.

In a state governed by the rule of law, legislation is not a surprise, but a point of orientation. When regulation is constantly corrected after the fact, that orientation disappears.

A Change of Government: Not a Miracle Cure, but a Real Opportunity

A change of government, of course, does not in itself guarantee better legislation. It is, however, an opportunity to restore minimum procedural standards. This is not an ideological issue, but a professional one.

The real measure of change will not be what is regulated, but how:

• whether meaningful social consultation returns,
• whether the “detour” through private members’ bills comes to an end,
• and whether there is genuine impact assessment and professional dialogue.

The quality of legislation does not slow down decision-making — it prevents mistakes.

A Lawyer’s Expectation: Procedural Fairness

As lawyers, we do not expect political content, but procedural fairness:

• transparent preparation,
• foreseeable deadlines,
• and an approach that treats professional criticism not as a nuisance, but as a resource.

Legislation is not a demonstration of power, but a task of public trust.

We Are Not Speaking as Outsiders

As lawyers of Hungarian origin, licensed and actively practising in more than one—five in total—states, we do not follow the development of Hungarian legislation as external observers. In our international practice, we see every day how the quality of a national legal system affects economic decisions, legal certainty, and the country’s international standing.

For precisely this reason, we would gladly and with a sense of professional responsibility take part in meaningful social consultations, provided that the legislative process offers a genuine opportunity for such participation. Our experience and international comparative perspective can help ensure that regulation is not only politically effective, but also professionally defensible and sustainable.

At the same time, as lawyers, we regard it as our duty to monitor the procedure and quality of legislation and, where necessary, to formulate professional criticism. Not from an oppositional standpoint, but out of a commitment to the minimum requirements of the rule of law.

Social consultation is not a gesture, but a structure. If this structure is genuinely restored, we would not only wish to participate in it — we would seek to contribute actively.